Quote:
Originally Posted by Sven7
Seriously, we do airflow testing here at work and some stuff comes out the exact opposite of what you'd think. I obviously can't go into detail. Just be aware that in many aero circumstances, how a thing looks has little bearing on how it actually works. If you're trying something that deviates from conventional wisdom, you need to test it.
|
Can you give me any examples? Just whisper into my microphone--I mean, my ear!
I think that it was Aerohead that said that in a windtunnel, the air going over the trunk of a 914 actually flowed forward!
Stuff like that?
I have seen this diagram several times lately and when Aerohead shared it in
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...rag-25845.html I responded:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xist
I guess that "filling the wake" still helps, even if we do not maintain attached flow.
|
and he answered:
Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead
Yes,it looks like even a compromised aft-body will still provide some drag reducing potential as with Chrysler's experiments with their De Soto Airflow test mule demonstrated.
Their 'fast' rearend helped get the Cd 0.51 of the orig. car down to Cd 0.244.
Not too shabby for 1934!
|
You guys seem to have agreed that attached flow is not enough, but would you have even that much if the angle is too steep?